blackrodd
Established Member
Grayorm":1b88tc1k said:
personally, I'd wait 'til after the Christmas carols have finished, before getting the ball out and then share honing photo's!
Regards Rodders
Sharpening: 1000 vs 16000 grit.
- Thread starter Ed Bray
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
personally, I'd wait 'til after the Christmas carols have finished, before getting the ball out and then share honing photo's!
Regards Rodders
David C":se06xwnt said:
I would honestly like to have an understanding of what issue needs to be solved once a tool's back is flat and highly polished all the way across the cutting edge and for a fair distance behind the cutting edge to accommodate loss of length over time. I've read for years that this is the ideal and this from sources considered classics in the field. You are apparently asserting it is not. I'd like to understand why.
On tools not specifically treated on the front end (a jack plane iron or two) I have been unable to stop the backs from becoming flat and polished. I can't imagine a scenario where they wouldn't over time, and in reality not all that much time. If it's a problem it's one that solves itself -- my favorite kind. Are other people somehow having a different experience? If so, to what would this be attributed? The outcome seems a certainty.
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
I got 20 new block planes for highschool, not best quality, but not bad considering budget constraints. The ruler trick was a godsend preparing those! This is a good instance for its use, I think you'll agree.
The wear bevel on plane irons extends further on the flat side than the bevel side. This is especially so on bevel up planes. It is quite possible to raise a wire edge when honing, but not actually get past the wear bevel, so thinking you've sharpened, but actually not. You might just return to the stone and hone some more to get past the wear bevel. It is arguable that a small back bevel, such as that produced be the ruler trick will get past the wear bevel quicker and save time, steel and uncertainty, therefore should ALWAYS be employed, in fact.
Knowing and UNDERSTANDING what the ruler trick/back bevels actually do is knowledge that can be useful in the right application. Dismissing certain techniques, that do have uses for some is plain ignorance. It might not be for certain people, but it has demonstrably positive results when used with common sense.
Mike.
I got 20 new block planes for highschool, not best quality, but not bad considering budget constraints. The ruler trick was a godsend preparing those! This is a good instance for its use, I think you'll agree.
The wear bevel on plane irons extends further on the flat side than the bevel side. This is especially so on bevel up planes. It is quite possible to raise a wire edge when honing, but not actually get past the wear bevel, so thinking you've sharpened, but actually not. You might just return to the stone and hone some more to get past the wear bevel. It is arguable that a small back bevel, such as that produced be the ruler trick will get past the wear bevel quicker and save time, steel and uncertainty, therefore should ALWAYS be employed, in fact.
Knowing and UNDERSTANDING what the ruler trick/back bevels actually do is knowledge that can be useful in the right application. Dismissing certain techniques, that do have uses for some is plain ignorance. It might not be for certain people, but it has demonstrably positive results when used with common sense.
Mike.
Mike, I do understand that it's a dodge for tools in less than stellar condition.
I have two block planes and I don't seem to have any difficulty honing their cutters in the normal manner. I don't see any need for a dodge at all. They've always seemed really sharp, cut as if they're really sharp. I suppose ignorance must be bliss in this case.
I have two block planes and I don't seem to have any difficulty honing their cutters in the normal manner. I don't see any need for a dodge at all. They've always seemed really sharp, cut as if they're really sharp. I suppose ignorance must be bliss in this case.
David C
In Memorium
Charles,
That is the old theory.
If you do a little research over the Christmas break, you might discover what the powerful advantages of the ruler trick are.
It was devised for synthetic Japanese water stones. And can be used for plane and all other blades, except chisels.
Several notable craftsmen have extolled its virtue, so you should not have too many problems with your research. Chris Schwarz, Rob Cosman, Deneb P., Tom Fidgeon.
Treat it as a challenge! And leave me alone until you are better informed......
That is the old theory.
If you do a little research over the Christmas break, you might discover what the powerful advantages of the ruler trick are.
It was devised for synthetic Japanese water stones. And can be used for plane and all other blades, except chisels.
Several notable craftsmen have extolled its virtue, so you should not have too many problems with your research. Chris Schwarz, Rob Cosman, Deneb P., Tom Fidgeon.
Treat it as a challenge! And leave me alone until you are better informed......
I see from an article you wrote for PW (linked below) that its main thrust is backing off an iron that has become bellied by a hollow waterstone, viz. it's for bellied cutters.
My cutters are flat, my stones are not worn hollow. I don't believe that I have a use for the ruler trick. I don't have to lift to polish away a burr as my black Ark tests dead flat and it has imposed this level of flatness to my tools over time (with help from the stones that come before it; they're all flat).
Your article, complete with schematics of hollow stones and the resulting belly introduced on a plane iron:
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick
"One of the main problems occurs as the surface of a sharpening stone wears hollow in use. The flat side of our plane blade develops a bump in its length. (See the illustration at right.) One day we flatten the stone and have a disastrous situation where the critical edge area no longer touches the stone at all. This makes it impossible to polish away the wire edge, which is a vital part of the sharpening process."
I agree that this is more applicable to waterstones than other types of stones -- oil, ceramics, diamond, Scary Sharp, etc.
Your article does confuse me in that the first portion introduces the ruler trick as a way to deal with hollow stones and later in the article you tout the ease at which waterstones can be kept flat.... :wink: It would appear that it is only the lazy waterstone user, one who doesn't keep his stones flat (easily done, right?) that might have use for the technique.
I'm really only concerned with what you've written about the technique since it has been essentially attributed to you. I'm happy to have found the PW article.
How do you suppose the likes of Toshio Odate apparently enjoy the use of waterstones without needing your micro back beveling technique? Is it simply through regular waterstone maintenance? One would assume so. Do you have information to the contrary?
My cutters are flat, my stones are not worn hollow. I don't believe that I have a use for the ruler trick. I don't have to lift to polish away a burr as my black Ark tests dead flat and it has imposed this level of flatness to my tools over time (with help from the stones that come before it; they're all flat).
Your article, complete with schematics of hollow stones and the resulting belly introduced on a plane iron:
http://www.popularwoodworking.com/techn ... uler_trick
"One of the main problems occurs as the surface of a sharpening stone wears hollow in use. The flat side of our plane blade develops a bump in its length. (See the illustration at right.) One day we flatten the stone and have a disastrous situation where the critical edge area no longer touches the stone at all. This makes it impossible to polish away the wire edge, which is a vital part of the sharpening process."
I agree that this is more applicable to waterstones than other types of stones -- oil, ceramics, diamond, Scary Sharp, etc.
Your article does confuse me in that the first portion introduces the ruler trick as a way to deal with hollow stones and later in the article you tout the ease at which waterstones can be kept flat.... :wink: It would appear that it is only the lazy waterstone user, one who doesn't keep his stones flat (easily done, right?) that might have use for the technique.
I'm really only concerned with what you've written about the technique since it has been essentially attributed to you. I'm happy to have found the PW article.
How do you suppose the likes of Toshio Odate apparently enjoy the use of waterstones without needing your micro back beveling technique? Is it simply through regular waterstone maintenance? One would assume so. Do you have information to the contrary?
Mr T
Established Member
Why are people on forums so bloody pedantic! As I see it we all find our own way with the craft, picking up tips and techniques as we travel on the journey, discarding some that don't work for us and adopting others that do. David, Charles, Jacob et al are all doing us a favour explaining their methods but showing themselves up as being rather petty in their pedantry.
For what it's worth here's my unpedantic approach to sharpening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XizVz0ZD9PE
Chris
For what it's worth here's my unpedantic approach to sharpening https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XizVz0ZD9PE
Chris
Water-Mark
Established Member
Is that really a 20min video to demonstrate a 30 second sharpening technique?
(only kidding :wink: )
Being a beginner my chisels and plane irons are far from perfect but they're more than sharp enough to cut the wood I'm cutting using cheap diamond plates and a leather strop.
I have to wonder, how much sharper can they get, and is it worth the bother?
And Merry Christmas to one and all, however you sharpen your chisels.
(only kidding :wink: )
Being a beginner my chisels and plane irons are far from perfect but they're more than sharp enough to cut the wood I'm cutting using cheap diamond plates and a leather strop.
I have to wonder, how much sharper can they get, and is it worth the bother?
And Merry Christmas to one and all, however you sharpen your chisels.
matthewwh
Established Member
My apologies, I've dropped the cat among the pigeons and not been around to fish it out before the feathers start flying.
Charles, please take a moment to reflect upon the following:
The ruler trick is only for plane irons, so all reference to chisels is otiose.
As you know, the fundamental principle of sharpening is to create a line of intersection between two polished surfaces, however there is also the secondary principle to consider:
The smaller a surface is, the less effort it takes to polish it (or the higher the quality of polish can be achieved for the same effort).
We create a secondary bevel on the other side for exactly these reasons, if (unlike a chisel) the back is not a registration surface, why on earth not apply the same logic of a carefully managed convexity to the back of a plane iron.
As Jacob says, the old boys have been doing much the same for years but without the control, I once bought an old Norris smoother with an edge like an axe, and deemed it such a disaster I asked Darryl Hutchinson make me a new one. I now understand that it had been extensively 'without a ruler tricked' and was probably quite recoverable had I followed the previous owner's technique.
The difference is that David's technique is repeatable and controlled, yielding maximum result for minimum effort.
It works just as well with well kept oilstones, especially if you have lovely superfine Arkansas or Charnleys that will deliver a slick glossy polish.
In comparison, a flat back extends the area to be polished, thereby watering down the beneficial effects of backing off and stropping to an area that will not be relevant for decades.
At the end of the day it's just secondary bevels for backs, when we can get away with using it instead of managed concavity (as we must for chisels).
The benefits are abundant, the arguments against either stubbornness, intransigence or both.
Did all brilliant ideas take this much effort to introduce? If so perhaps we have a view on why it has taken 4000 years to get to where we are now without the benefit of the internet?
Charles, please take a moment to reflect upon the following:
The ruler trick is only for plane irons, so all reference to chisels is otiose.
As you know, the fundamental principle of sharpening is to create a line of intersection between two polished surfaces, however there is also the secondary principle to consider:
The smaller a surface is, the less effort it takes to polish it (or the higher the quality of polish can be achieved for the same effort).
We create a secondary bevel on the other side for exactly these reasons, if (unlike a chisel) the back is not a registration surface, why on earth not apply the same logic of a carefully managed convexity to the back of a plane iron.
As Jacob says, the old boys have been doing much the same for years but without the control, I once bought an old Norris smoother with an edge like an axe, and deemed it such a disaster I asked Darryl Hutchinson make me a new one. I now understand that it had been extensively 'without a ruler tricked' and was probably quite recoverable had I followed the previous owner's technique.
The difference is that David's technique is repeatable and controlled, yielding maximum result for minimum effort.
It works just as well with well kept oilstones, especially if you have lovely superfine Arkansas or Charnleys that will deliver a slick glossy polish.
In comparison, a flat back extends the area to be polished, thereby watering down the beneficial effects of backing off and stropping to an area that will not be relevant for decades.
At the end of the day it's just secondary bevels for backs, when we can get away with using it instead of managed concavity (as we must for chisels).
The benefits are abundant, the arguments against either stubbornness, intransigence or both.
Did all brilliant ideas take this much effort to introduce? If so perhaps we have a view on why it has taken 4000 years to get to where we are now without the benefit of the internet?
One gets precisely the same effect by using a charged leather strop, actually probably a better effect.
There isn't one iota of intransigence. The ruler trick is the end result of throwing the baby out with the bath-water, in this instance a simple leather strop and perhaps stones that don't erode on as rapid a schedule.
I still wonder how a decades-long woodworker ends up with anything but tools with flat and highly polished backs. Nobody has been courageous enough to explain it. As far as I can tell, it can only happen to those who defer maintenance on their waterstones.
I totally understand the technique as a dodge if for some reason one finds himself or herself with a shortage of properly prepared plane irons.
Plane irons used for years (really just months) get flat and they get polished. Like death and taxes, it's a certainty. One could go out of their way to work backs on hollow stones but that's just bad technique, not a shop-standard, recommended, or commendable practice.
There isn't one iota of intransigence. The ruler trick is the end result of throwing the baby out with the bath-water, in this instance a simple leather strop and perhaps stones that don't erode on as rapid a schedule.
I still wonder how a decades-long woodworker ends up with anything but tools with flat and highly polished backs. Nobody has been courageous enough to explain it. As far as I can tell, it can only happen to those who defer maintenance on their waterstones.
I totally understand the technique as a dodge if for some reason one finds himself or herself with a shortage of properly prepared plane irons.
Plane irons used for years (really just months) get flat and they get polished. Like death and taxes, it's a certainty. One could go out of their way to work backs on hollow stones but that's just bad technique, not a shop-standard, recommended, or commendable practice.
mod edit
Mike, the article speaks for itself.
Mike, the article speaks for itself.
matthewwh
Established Member
The polish more than 1mm behind the edge is irrelevant. Why are you wasting effort creating it?
"Because its so easy" doesn't make it any more relevant.
"Because its so easy" doesn't make it any more relevant.
matthewwh":13kxb1g8 said:
If you don't register enough of the cutter on the stone you're likely to cut yourself and it's just plain uncomfortable to me. If you want to see a back being worked read Toshio Odate and look at accompanying photos. Or Hayward, Jones, Hooper, Wells, Taylor, et al.
Why are you fighting it? Just put the plane iron on the stone in a comfortable position and rub. What's the big deal?
I guess I need to take a picture of a row of plane irons to show you guys what a total of an hour or so worth of work will produce followed up by regular honing over the years.
Maybe the whole problem is that I'm the only guy around who is stupid enough to be using the same tools with the same cutters in them?
Beginning to think so.... I'll let you in on a secret -- they actually get shorter over time! Can you believe it?
I have no idea how I could have kept the cutters from getting polished and flat. None at all. It's as if I'm being asked to apologize for not needing a dodge around a bad plane iron. If I did have one really out of whack I simply would have gotten rid of it and bought a new one. What the hell- thirty bucks or so? Please. It's like refusing to by a new package of toilet tissue. Why get mad at your own a$$hole? Get what you need to get done what needs doing.
I don't think I've come across a poor modern Plane iron, one that requires anything more than a couple of minutes work.
LN, Veritas, Ray Iles, Quangsheng, modern Stanley premium, unknown Chinese HSS (several) have all been as flat as one could wish.
The worst I've had was an old thin Stanley blade, which I gave up on. I've also had a couple of old English cast blades that were too far out to bother with but that's out of more than a dozen blades of that type. I also have an old thin Acorn blade that is flat but a bit pitted behind the cutting edge. That will be a candidate for the ruler trick when I eventually reach that pitting. For some reason it happens to be a very good blade, at least as good as any of those modern blades that I've listed. That's why I won't give up on it.
LN, Veritas, Ray Iles, Quangsheng, modern Stanley premium, unknown Chinese HSS (several) have all been as flat as one could wish.
The worst I've had was an old thin Stanley blade, which I gave up on. I've also had a couple of old English cast blades that were too far out to bother with but that's out of more than a dozen blades of that type. I also have an old thin Acorn blade that is flat but a bit pitted behind the cutting edge. That will be a candidate for the ruler trick when I eventually reach that pitting. For some reason it happens to be a very good blade, at least as good as any of those modern blades that I've listed. That's why I won't give up on it.
You don't know how relieved I am to know I'm not the only one:
"I don't think I've come across a poor modern Plane iron, one that requires anything more than a couple of minutes work. "
"I don't think I've come across a poor modern Plane iron, one that requires anything more than a couple of minutes work. "
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The only modern blade I had a prob with was an old USA Stanley (laminated). The back (i.e. the same side as the bevel) was oddly uneven and wouldn't lie flat on the frog so I had to flatten it until it had enough high spots to sit still. Quite easy to do as it was the soft side of the lamination.
NB the modern fashion for calling the flat side the "back" instead of the more obvious word "face" leaves the back itself (the bevel side) nameless as nobody seems to call it the "face".
No accounting for fashion!
I wonder when/why the change occurred. I've got some old woodworker mags (50s and 60s) and the flat side is "the face" throughout - in the texts and in adverts (Marples Chisels amongst others)
NB the modern fashion for calling the flat side the "back" instead of the more obvious word "face" leaves the back itself (the bevel side) nameless as nobody seems to call it the "face".
No accounting for fashion!
I wonder when/why the change occurred. I've got some old woodworker mags (50s and 60s) and the flat side is "the face" throughout - in the texts and in adverts (Marples Chisels amongst others)
Makes sense as the no beveled side is oriented upward when installed in the plane. The other side downward, hence the back.
I think I'll switch the way I refer to either side.
You do bring up a good point in that an iron could be twisted and you'll have more problems than just lapping the face - she won't sit tight to the frog and would likely chatter and cut very unevenly. Any effort to produce polish at the cutting edge is potentially just a Band-Aid over a much bigger problem.
I think I'll switch the way I refer to either side.
You do bring up a good point in that an iron could be twisted and you'll have more problems than just lapping the face - she won't sit tight to the frog and would likely chatter and cut very unevenly. Any effort to produce polish at the cutting edge is potentially just a Band-Aid over a much bigger problem.
David C
In Memorium
Chris T,
Enjoyed your video. Minimal pedantry!
David C
Enjoyed your video. Minimal pedantry!
David C
High praise indeed.
pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
adjective: pedantic
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky;
dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist;
casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical;
captious, hair-splitting, quibbling;
nitpicking, persnickety
"a pedantic interpretation of the rules"
pe·dan·tic
pəˈdan(t)ik/
adjective
adjective: pedantic
of or like a pedant.
"many of the essays are long, dense, and too pedantic to hold great appeal"
synonyms: overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finicky;
dogmatic, purist, literalist, literalistic, formalist;
casuistic, casuistical, sophistic, sophistical;
captious, hair-splitting, quibbling;
nitpicking, persnickety
"a pedantic interpretation of the rules"
